Firefox has been my main browser lately, and in my experience it covers pretty much every latest spec: no issues with Web Audio, WebGL (as well as WebGPU, I think), CSS features, etc. There are some select cases where Chrome has deployed something and Firefox is lagging (Background Fetch, for example) but that affects me more as a developer than a user. I cannot remember a single time when I opened something and it didn’t work in Firefox.
I find that implementing a sound solution from scratch is generally lower effort than taking something that already exists and making it sound.
The former: 1) understand the problem, 2) solve the problem.
The latter: 1) understand the problem, 2) solve the problem, 3) understand how somebody or something else understood & solved the problem, 4) diff those two, 5) plan a transition from that solution to this solution, 6) implement that transition (ideally without unplanned downtime and/or catastrophic loss of data).
This is also why I’m not a fan of code reviews. Code review is basically steps 1–4 from the second approach, plus having to verbally explain the diff, every time.
That's specious reasoning. Code reviews are a safeguard against cowboy coding, and a tool to enforce shared code ownership. You might believe you know better than most of your team members, but odds are a fresh pair of eyes can easily catch issues you snuck in your code that you couldn't catch due to things like PR tunnel vision.
And if your PR is sound, you certainly don't have a problem explaining what you did and why you did it.
Code reviews have their place. I just personally don’t like being the reviewer, because it’s more effort on your part than just writing the damn thing from scratch while someone else gets the credit for the result[0]. Of course, having multiple pairs of eyes on the code and multiple people who understand it is crucial.
[0] Reviews are OK if I enjoy working with the person whose work I’m reviewing and I feel like I’m helping them grow.
When learning, motivation is first, everything else follows.
At some point I felt the drive to move on from Python as my main language. There was no question of “how”: when I needed or wanted to build anything, I would simply go with Go (later TypeScript) and plow on. It is hard to pinpoint exactly what motivated that drive, but I think it was probably curiosity after seeing examples in other languages, wanting to be more competitive, and—let’s be honest—the basic desire to feel a little cooler in the eyes of peers.
Be mindful of second-order volition here. Like when someone says “I want to quit %BAD_HABIT%”, what they really say is “I want to want to quit %BAD_HABIT”—if they really wanted to quit, they would have already done it. Similarly, if you want to learn a programming language, you are all set (unless it is so esoteric that there are no suitable resources or references, which never happens), but if you want to want to learn a programming language then what you need is some lateral move (tricking yourself, putting yourself in some situation, etc.) that makes you actually want to learn it.
These days learning a new programming language is a more sketchy question, because LLMs drain a few major sources of motivation: you can hardly feel cool for knowing how to program in a new language, because anyone would rightfully assume it was written with an LLM; you increasingly do not actually need to know a language, because a model writes everything for you; the competitive advantage is decreasing. Unlike speaking some human language, there is no society of native speakers that would accept you more or treat you better thanks to you speaking their language.
While at first glance LLMs do help expose and even circumvent gatekeeping, often it turns out that gatekeeping might have been there for a reason.
We have always relied on superficial cues to tell us about some deeper quality (good faith, willingness to comply with code of conduct, and so on). This is useful and is a necessary shortcut, as if we had to assess everyone and everything from first principles every time things would grind to a halt. Once a cue becomes unviable, the “gate” is not eliminated (except if briefly); the cue is just replaced with something else that is more difficult to circumvent.
I think that brief time after Internet enabled global communication and before LLMs devalued communication signals was pretty cool; now it seems like there’s more and more closed, private or paid communities.
Really? You think LLMs are a bigger shift in how internet communities are than big corporations like Google, Facebook etc.? I personally see much less change last few years than I did 15 years ago.
The extended mind theory takes the “neuronal activity is not the mind” (which seems trivially true to me) slightly further: not only it is not happening merely in the brain, it might not even be technically limited to our bodies and extends into the surrounding physical world.
So far whenever I read summaries about it I can’t say EMT exactly “clicks” with me, though I would at least lean towards our consciousness necessarily involving/extending to people in our lives whom we are in contact with.
Btw, from the threads's article, the personality change over transplant it's literally an episode from The Simpsons, but you, know, creators are actually PhD people, as it shows off under Futurama.
It is very interesting that whereas an incandescent lightbulb and a white LED (e.g., that Macbook screen) appear to us the same colour, their underlying spectra are very different (a solid black body radiation spectrum from the former and a choppy one from the latter).
I vaguely recall this is also known to cause a phenomenon where certain material can appear a false colour under certain light (especially a problem in case of, say, physical paintings and their various pigments), if whatever bands it reflects would align with the spectrum of emitted light in an unfortunate way.
(NB: even though the topic is relevant to his field of work, the author of the paper is not the digital videographer and YouTuber Brandon Li.)
I miss the low-pressure sodium street lights that used to be ubiquitous in Britain. The light was virtually monochromatic, which created a very specific aesthetic at night. Modern white LEDs feel more like a bad approximation of day rather than embracing the idea night should look different I think.
LEDs are much more flexible with colour anyway, we should have tried to keep some visual continuity rather than going straight for the harsh high-K white in my opinion.
It is always possible to attribute whatever harms we come to as a result of some technology to one underlying issue or another, never to the technology itself—regarding any technology, be it LLMs or guns, this can be considered technically correct 100% of the time, because no technology is inherently good or bad.
That said, in face of a particularly disastrous (and yet predictable) outcome it is not enough to call for solving of such underlying issues; it is vital to solve such underlying issues before we introduce respective technology all over the place—and if that is not possible, make corresponding adjustments of how that technology is rolled out.
Does anyone know the ETA of MessageFormat 2.0? I am aware of the effort since pre-COVID times. I recall that some of the developers behind Mozilla Fluent have been among the people working on MF 2.0, and it’d be great to know whether Fluent and ICU MF are going to be interoperable in foreseeable future.
IIRC, the goal was for Fluent to have a convertor or something to be able to work with MessageFormat 2.0, but I don't quite remember where I heard that. My approach has just been to stick to Fluent for now.
Whether monastic materialism or idealism is correct would be an unfalsifiable claim within the framework of natural scientific method. (That method is designed to help us make predictions; interpreting experimental outcome for a statement of objective truth is a misapplication of scientific method.) An existing natural-scientific model can be referenced in a philosophical argument, but the argument remains a philosophical statement. A philosophical argument can still be debated on other merits—e.g., which alternative grants magical objective existence to more arbitrary entities, or such.
At its core, I believe the phenomenon of culture is intertwined with the hard problem of consciousness, which is notoriously circular and self-referential and roughly speaking “how we do/feel things ’round here” is potentially not far from the best we can do.
Cultural baggage, for the lack of a better word, drives how we tend to approach reality (holistically or by dividing and classifying things, monistically or dualistically, materialistically or idealistically, and so on), and reality includes the very thing under discussion (consciousness, culture).
Shared cultural baggage is perhaps the thing that makes us believe another being is conscious (i.e., shares similar aspects of self-awareness). Shared culture manifests itself in an infinity of fine details of one’s behaviour; looking like a human but not behaving like a human can be a great horror movie trope, depending on how carefully shared culture is violated[0].
This carries over to animals, to a degree. A dog is social to an extent that many would consider it conscious. An octopus is legally recognised as sentient in some countries—thanks to it behaving in a way that is vaguely reminiscent of ourselves. Same reason we call ravens smart.
Most humans anywhere on the planet, though, share enough cultural baggage that we do not question whether others have what we consider consciousness; though I think some people are more sensitive to how much shared cultural baggage another human possesses, the small lack of which could lead to fear, cautiousness, and/or a feeling that they are in some ways subhuman (closer than a dog, but not as human as their peers in local community) relative to them, which eventually contributes to exclusion, racism, and so on (well demonstrated in both Japan and parts of the US).
[0] Arguably, “behaving sufficiently like a human while being not human at all”, which we have plenty of examples of now in the last year or two, is another such trope.
> culture is intertwined with the hard problem of consciousness
Majority of people are sleep-walking as machines driven by imitation, habit and external forces. We live in a dreamlike, mechanical state lacking the awareness of this itself. apropos: Gurdjieff
Very uncharitable and questionable on a few levels. Every human exists in context of society, no human exists standalone—the very definition of self, as in self-awareness, has the existence of other as a prerequisite. People you see are perfectly aware of themselves; it’s just that awareness of yourself does not mean you have to violate societal norms and show how individual you are all the time—at best, it requires a more acute awareness of norms (you have to know what to violate first, cf. all the various counter-cultures), making one more socially integrated and in some ways paradoxicay less individual; at worst (if you are properly disconnected) it makes one less of a human, not more.
> People you see are perfectly aware of themselves
Are they rote-students imitating or copying memes and as such are driven by inadequate-ideas or are they students who understand the subject from its first assumptions and as such are driven by adequate-ideas. In the quote above, the suggestion is that majority are rote-students.
There’s a lot of ground between “imitate” and “understand the subject from its first assumptions”. Arguably, the former is how all learning happens at first. We imitate to get a taste for it and start enjoying it (humans are mirrors), then we can dig deeper if we become sufficiently interested. You can hardly become truly interested in music if you are presented with all the music theory up front and don’t get to have fun playing the instrument; same with math.
Even if someone never becomes sufficiently interested to dig deeper into some academic subject and sticks to imitating, I wouldn’t say they are somehow worse and have no awareness. They may have other interests and joys in life, there’s many fulfilling things outside academia. Why would you expect everybody to be like you?
reply